IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijsaem/v8y2017i2d10.1007_s13198-016-0478-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The quality function deployment method under uncertain environment using evidential reasoning: a case study of compressor manufacturing

Author

Listed:
  • Shiva Mehrabi-Kandsar

    (Amirkabir University of Technology)

  • Abolfazl Mirzazadeh

    (Kharazmi University)

  • Aref Gholami-Qadikolaei

    (Kharazmi University)

Abstract

In recent years, the issue of customer satisfaction achieving on the basis of improving service quality has been widely investigated. To achieve this goal, one of well-structured method is quality function deployment (QFD). QFD is an approach defining customer requirements (CRs) and translating them into relevant design requirements (DRs). The successful implementation of QFD requires a significant number of subjective evaluations of both customers and QFD team members. The QFD team members evaluate relationships between DRs and CRs and interrelationships between DRs. The customers evaluate relative importance of each CRs. In the basic QFD, crisp values are used for determining relationships between DRs and CRs, but the mentioned method are not suitable to address the subject of uncertainty, since in most cases QFD team express their opinions with uncertainty and therefore resulting in inappropriate implementation of QFD. This paper aims to apply a QFD method based on evidential reasoning approach to handle uncertain evaluation information provided by QFD team in compressor manufacturing. This method is able to consider uncertainties such as interval, imprecise and incomplete data in utilizing belief structure and then aggregating them to prioritize engineering DRs according to CRs.

Suggested Citation

  • Shiva Mehrabi-Kandsar & Abolfazl Mirzazadeh & Aref Gholami-Qadikolaei, 2017. "The quality function deployment method under uncertain environment using evidential reasoning: a case study of compressor manufacturing," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 8(2), pages 1867-1884, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:8:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s13198-016-0478-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s13198-016-0478-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13198-016-0478-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13198-016-0478-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ertay, Tijen, 1998. "Simulation approach in comparison of a pull system in a cell production system with a push system in a conventional production system according to flexible cost: A case study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 145-155, September.
    2. Kim, Kwang-Jae & Moskowitz, Herbert & Dhingra, Anoop & Evans, Gerald, 2000. "Fuzzy multicriteria models for quality function deployment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 504-518, March.
    3. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(1), pages 35-66, November.
    4. Xu, Dong-Ling & Yang, Jian-Bo & Wang, Ying-Ming, 2006. "The evidential reasoning approach for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1914-1943, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Noor Asfia & Muhammad Usman Awan & Shahid Munir, 2022. "Halal Meat Exports Enhancement of Pakistan: An Intermediating Role of Global Technical Standards in Quality Function Deployment Model," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 4(1), pages 59-70.
    2. Tang, Xinzi & Wang, Zhe & Xiao, Peng & Peng, Ruitao & Liu, Xiongwei, 2020. "Uncertainty quantification based optimization of centrifugal compressor impeller for aerodynamic robustness under stochastic operational conditions," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Sainath G. Bidikar & Santosh B. Rane & Prathamesh R. Potdar, 2022. "Product development using Design for Six Sigma approach: case study in switchgear industry," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 13(1), pages 203-230, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gao, Bin & Ni, Ming-Fang, 2009. "A note on article "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees"," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 809-812, September.
    2. Ni, Lei & Chen, Yu-wang & de Brujin, Oscar, 2021. "Towards understanding socially influenced vaccination decision making: An integrated model of multiple criteria belief modelling and social network analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(1), pages 276-289.
    3. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    4. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    5. Yang, Guo-liang & Yang, Jian-bo & Liu, Wen-bin & Li, Xiao-xuan, 2013. "Cross-efficiency aggregation in DEA models using the evidential-reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(2), pages 393-404.
    6. Cui, Huizi & Zhou, Lingge & Li, Yan & Kang, Bingyi, 2022. "Belief entropy-of-entropy and its application in the cardiac interbeat interval time series analysis," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    7. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    8. Guo, Min & Yang, Jian-Bo & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Wang, Hongwei, 2007. "Evidential reasoning based preference programming for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1294-1312, November.
    9. S. Nodoust & A. Mirzazadeh & G.-W. Weber, 2020. "An evidential reasoning approach for production modeling with deteriorating and ameliorating items," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, March.
    10. Zhang, Mei-Jing & Wang, Ying-Ming & Li, Ling-Hui & Chen, Sheng-Qun, 2017. "A general evidential reasoning algorithm for multi-attribute decision analysis under interval uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 1005-1015.
    11. Karaaslan, Abdulkerim & Gezen, Mesliha, 2022. "The evaluation of renewable energy resources in Turkey by integer multi-objective selection problem with interval coefficient," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 842-854.
    12. Wang, Ying-Ming, 2009. "Reply to the note on article "The evidential reasoning approach for multiple attribute decision analysis using interval belief degrees"," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 813-817, September.
    13. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    14. Maddulapalli, Anil Kumar & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2012. "Estimation, modeling, and aggregation of missing survey data for prioritizing customer voices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(3), pages 762-776.
    15. Deng, Xinyang & Hu, Yong & Chan, Felix T.S. & Mahadevan, Sankaran & Deng, Yong, 2015. "Parameter estimation based on interval-valued belief structures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 579-582.
    16. Hua Zhu & Jianbin Zhao & Yang Xu & Limin Du, 2016. "Interval-Valued Belief Rule Inference Methodology Based on Evidential Reasoning-IRIMER," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(06), pages 1345-1366, November.
    17. Kahraman, Cengiz & Ertay, Tijen & Buyukozkan, Gulcin, 2006. "A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(2), pages 390-411, June.
    18. Voola, Persis & A., Vinaya Babu, 2017. "Study of aggregation algorithms for aggregating imprecise software requirements’ priorities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1191-1199.
    19. Dong-Ling Xu, 2012. "An introduction and survey of the evidential reasoning approach for multiple criteria decision analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 163-187, May.
    20. Li, Yan-Lai & Tang, Jia-Fu & Chin, Kwai-Sang & Jiang, Yu-Shi & Han, Yi & Pu, Yun, 2011. "Estimating the final priority ratings of engineering characteristics in mature-period product improvement by MDBA and AHP," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 575-586, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ijsaem:v:8:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s13198-016-0478-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.